This article focuses on whether or not iPad tablet computers are beneficial in the learning process for students with autism. In 2010, she conducted a study on a small group of autistic students to see if electronic books read on the iPad would increase autistic students comprehension abilities. During the study, students were asked to read a traditional printed textbook and answer a set of questions, and then they were asked to do the same on the iPad. The autistic students had to do this twice for each one. The results showed great improvement through the electronic books and comprehension tests taken through the iPad. Using the iPad helps students become motivated and would help reduce off-task behavior. The only drawback for teachers is that they have a hard time organizing the e-books because the folders on the iPad can only hold up to a certain amount. Teachers had a difficult time organizing the apps and the iTunes store, too. This, though, is just a small drawback that can be overcome. Going back to the results, it should be concluded that iPads would be a great educational tool for schools to have.
In reading this article, I felt that the study conducted was very helpful and useful. The iPad could be very beneficial to autistic kids and students with disabilities, seeing the positive outcome of the results. Even though teachers didn’t like the organizational part of it, they should think about how the students will benefit from the use of it. Over time the teachers would be able to get use to organizing all of the apps and navigating their way through iTunes to find the e-books they need. If I was one of the teachers and saw the outcome of the study, I would seriously consider asking for funding to obtain the iPads so autistic kids can learn better.
This article discusses how districts across the country are using a bunch of financial sources to build and sustain virtual education programs. They are taking money from sources like Title I and Title III, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; providing and I support for special education services. The district wants to be the lead in new technology and needs to use these federal programs as financial sources. For special education, they already bought reading-intervention software because most of their special education students attend regular classes. With the funds they have and want to get they can benefit not only special education students, but non-disabled students as well.
I enjoyed reading this article because it is nice to see the district want to get funding for special education students. They have gotten funding and used it to purchase new technology that can improve special education students learning skills. Not only was there technology purchased for special education students, but it was also purchased for disadvantaged students as well. It is always nice to see the school system and district caring about how materials affect the learning of students with special needs. I also feel that parents would be very upset to hear this. Parents want to know that their child has the proper schooling they need, and who knows if their child will after the special education teachers and assistants leave.
This article examines how the “funding cliff” has been hitting many states and districts. This means that there will be a layoff of teacher assistants and teachers. The problem is that the district is running out of federal stimulus money. The federal stimulus money was used to preserve and create special education teaching assistants’ jobs during an economic recession. The district is also worried that the federal stimulus money will run out by the summer. The ARRA, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is used for funds for saving jobs. Instead of using them for saving jobs, the district used that money to help create jobs in special education. Now, since they can’t save jobs, they proposed to cut one hundred thirty-two positions created with or sustained by stimulus dollars. Of the one hundred thirty-two positions, sixty-three are special education assistants, special education teachers, and behavior specialists.
This article made me upset to read. I think it’s horrible how they are cutting that many special education positions. Without special education teachers and assistants, the special education students will have nobody to help them one-on-one and really pay attention to, or know, their needs. The district needs to realize and make a plan for special education students once the layoffs happen because I don’t know if they fully understand how it affects the learning of special education students.
This article explains how the Supreme Court is considering the question; “When must public school officials pay for private schooling for children with special needs?” This has been a huge issue between parents and school officials, and usually can only be solved in court. The issue costs local school boards hundreds of millions of dollars and shows a threat to public education funds. The Court and Congress have stated before that every disabled child has a right to a free public education. If the school system isn’t able to provide the disabled child that education, that is when it has to reimburse the parents for sending their child to private school. If the court rules in favor of the parents, then school officials and parents with non-disabled students are worried that the parents of the special education children will bypass the public education system and go right to private schooling. Other schools oppose sending special education students to private schools because they want to include them in the general student population.
In reading this article, I felt that school systems should provide funding for special education kids attending private schools, if they couldn’t provide the proper education needed. I agree with school officials and parents with non-disabled students when they feel that parents with special education students are going to bypass the public education school system just so they can get money for private schooling. I don’t think that is fair if that was to happen. I think that special education students should try to get the proper schooling they need in the public school system and if that doesn’t work out, that is when they should look into the private schooling option.
National Education Association. (2004). Background of Special Education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Retrieved December 3, 2011, from http://www.nea.org/home/19029.htm
This article explains the 2004 Reauthorization Bill of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Ever since it’s initial enactment in 1975, it has not fulfilled its promise. This federal law included a commitment to pay forty percent of the average per student cost for every special education student. This Bill needed to be reauthorized because the federal government wasn’t living up to the forty percent; they were providing school districts with fewer than twenty percent of its commitment. “This shortfall creates a burden on local communities and denies full opportunity to all students—with and without disabilities.” The National Education Association and other major national organizations support “a proposal that would phase in full funding over the next six years.”
I thought this article was a great read. I’m glad to hear that the National Education Association wants to make it so that federal government pays the full forty percent of the average per student cost for every special education student. It’s nice to see that parents, teachers, school officials, and major national organizations support special education and how full funding is important to receive for disabled students.
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.helin.uri.edu/ehost/detail?sid=d5aa21c9-a870-4572-9c81-3cf9b1f6d056%40sessionmgr111&vid=15&hid=111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eft&AN=525577579
Davis, Michelle R. (2011). New Funding Tactics Seen as Necessary. Education Week; Vol.31 Issue 1, pS6-S7, 2p. Retrieved December 2, 2011, from
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.helin.uri.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=111&sid=57136007-7f52-489f-8488-a2410cfe3a7d%40sessionmgr115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eft&AN=513207711
Shah, Nirvi. (2011). As the ‘Funding Cliff’ Nears, Districts Cut Special Education Jobs. Education Week; Vol.30 Issue 30, p8-9, 2p. Retrieved December 2, 2011, from
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.helin.uri.edu/ehost/detail?sid=d9f14818-ce81-4b70-92e5-c37e794f72e6%40sessionmgr112&vid=6&hid=111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eft&AN=508205178
Barnes, Robert & de Vise Daniel. (2009). Court to Weigh Public Schools’ Responsibility to Fund Private Special Education. Retrieved December 3, 2011, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/26/AR2009042602249.html?sid=ST2009060702229
National Education Association. (2004). Background of Special Education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Retrieved December 3, 2011, from
http://www.nea.org/home/19029.htm